Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 656 F.3d 580

FMCSA issued a 2010 final rule mandating electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) for carriers with more than 10% HOS noncompliance in any single compliance review (1×10 remedial directive) for all trucks in the fleet; rule would be in effect for two years, then potential return to logbooks; the 2003 rule overhaul of HOS was previously invalidated and revised, with earlier proposals and comments on EOBRs addressing privacy and data use; the rule cites concerns about harassment of drivers and the need to monitor productivity alongside safety; the statutory requirement at issue is 49 U.S.C. § 31137(a), mandating that device use not be employed to harass vehicle operators; petitioners OOIDA and three truck drivers challenged the rule, raising standing and ripeness issues along with constitutional and administrative-law arguments; the Seventh Circuit vacates the rule and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FMCSA failed to address harassment concerns under §31137(a).	OOIDA argued harassment risk was mandated to be considered.	FMCSA claimed it considered harassment but offered only a conclusory mention.	Yes; fails to show adequate analysis of harassment; vacate.
Whether petitioners have standing and ripeness to challenge the rule.	OOIDA and drivers have Article III and prudential standing because they are within the rule’s zone of interests.	Agency asserted lack of current injury undermines standing and ripeness.	Petitioners have standing and ripeness; review is proper.
Whether the agency’s explanation suffices under State Farm and related standards.	Failure to provide a rational connection between facts and the decision.	Explanation was adequate and tied to productivity and safety goals.	Insufficient; vacate for inadequate reasoning.

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious review requires consideration of important factors; State Farm standard applied)
Public Citizen v. FMCSA, 374 F.3d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (failure to consider statutorily mandated factors renders rule arbitrary and capricious)
Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (pre-enforcement review available if claim is fit for judicial decision and hardship exists)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes Article III standing requirements (injury, causation, redressability))
Sabre, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 429 F.3d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (presumptive review for facial challenges when issues are legal)
Metropolitan Milwaukee Ass'n of Commerce v. Milwaukee County, 325 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2003) (ripeness considerations and administrative law standards applied in pre-enforcement challenges)
OOIDA v. FMCSA, 494 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (prior circuit ruling on HOS rulemaking and procedural adequacy)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (standing and injury in fact principles)
Public Citizen v. United States Dep't of Justice, 395 F.3d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (principles on evaluating agency consideration of factors)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. United States, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (central State Farm framework referenced in decision)